Meta

NASA's James Hansen: $1.2 million in illegal income?

From FoxNews.com: “The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to “silence” his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

“Hansen’s office appears to be somewhat of a rogue operation. It’s clearly a taxpayer-funded global warming advocacy organization,” said Chris Horner, a co-founder of The American Tradition Institute, which filed the lawsuit. “The real issue here is, has Hansen been asking NASA in writing, in advance, for permission for these outside activities? We have reason to believe that has not been occurring.”
The lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.”

It is not about the environment. It is about power. The power-seekers are exploiting every angle they can imagine to intimidate the public into accepting their control, and their rules. Those who are ‘rulers’ are exempt from the rules. Rep. Weiner is hounded out of office for what would have made Sen. Kennedy’s sycophants snicker. Administrators get a bye for $1.2 million extra income, while GS-7 technicians must report when a vendor rep buys them a meal at a conference.

Having spent 21 years in the state version of the EPA, I concur. My first month at my State job, a fellow who was moving on gave a talk on exactly what you have expounded upon. Its called “mission creep”

Yes, entirely possible that Hansen wasn’t getting prior written approval. He had the Bush administration cowed because they had bigger political issues, actually didn’t need to pay that much attention to him, and thought it best to let him blow out. Obama can ameliorate this by approving his outside activities ex post facto. The prior approval issue is more useful to publicize his absolute lack of independence and objectivity than it is to prove possibly illegal activity that can still be minimized if it is illegal.

@jleewest, it’s the same with the financial regulators and the issues of fraud or – the one that really keeps on giving – fairness. Regulators can only declare success when all possibile activity has ceased, thereby finally ensuring that no potentially bad thing can possibly happen. (Not saying that regulation doesn’t serve a purpose, just that it ultimately serves itself more than its ever shifting purposes. I’m currently for defined and restricted purposes and for closing down an agency when missions materially expand or change in other ways.)

As a past employee of EPA I always found it interesting that many of the employees spend most of their time creating or reacting to new and imagined problems to maintain their jobs. I never heard anyone say they solved a environmental problem nor would they declare victory. The solution to job security was to find a new perceived problem that would provide continued funding and always use scare tactics. Portions of NASA and NOAA behave the same way relative to some environmental issues. It’s all about funding.